Jacobs Journal of Civil Engineering

Original Article
Seismic Evaluation of Framed Structures Reinforced by FRP bars
Sara Mogahed1, Suzan Mustafa2 and Hilal Hassan3

Department of Structural Engineering, ZagaZig University, Egypt

*Corresponding author: Sara Mogahed, Department of Structural Engineering, ZagaZig University, Egypt; E-mail: sara.mega-
hed@zu.edu.eg

Received Date: 11-24-2018

Accepted Date: 12-07-2018
Published Date: 12-10-2018
Copyright: © 2018 Sara Mogahed

ABSTRACT:
The primary using FRP as replacement material instead of steel is curing corrosion in concrete structures,
which caused damage in concrete. The use of FRP as concrete reinforcement is relatively new, despite of
common using it as rehabilitation and retrofitting purpose. There are lacks of researches in, whether, exper-
imentally or analytically data of performance and design of new FRP reinforced concrete structures, espe-
cially for seismically region. The main objectives of this research were evaluation the seismic performances
of frames with FRP bars. Three models are considered to represent low-rise, medium-rise and high-rise
frames. Also, this research is needed to gain a better understanding of the behavior of FRP materials and
their interaction with traditional materials. A three parametric studied were investigated type of reinforce-
ment, concrete strength and number of stories .In this study, analyzes of RC frames has been performed us-
ing SeismoStruct software. This is base shear - drift curve and the cracking behavior of performance criteria
where obtained. By comparing the obtained results, it can be declared that FRP-RC frames are started to fail-
ure early than Steel-RC frames, thus the limit of inter-story drift at collapse prevention is different for FRP
than Steel. Increasing number of stories affected on changing the stage of performance level of frames, how-
ever, the FRP-RC frame not much affect with this parameter. Increasing the concrete compressive strength
enhanced the lateral load capacity for FRP-RC frames and with a little benefit for steel-RC frames. In general,
the extent of damage experienced by the frames at the target displacement (performance point) was found
to be between immediate occupancy and life safety when subjected to design lateral load.
Keywords: FRP; Reinforced concrete Frames; seismic evaluation; pushover analysis Inter-story drift; Per-
formance level; SeismoStruct.

Cite this article : Sara Mogahed, Suzan Mustafa and Hilal Hassan. Seismic Evaluation of Framed Structures Reinforced by FRP bars.
J J Civil Eng. 2018; 4(1): 008.
Jacobs Publishers 2

Introduction moStruct software to evaluate the seismic performance of

Nonlinear static pushover analysis has become a the reinforced frames.
popular analysis tool for seismic performance of reinforced Modelling
concrete structures. Standards guidelines such as ATC 40 Geometry
, FEMA 273 followed by FEMA 356 have given detailed The 3D RC structures are assumed to represent
guidelines to perform the nonlinear static pushover analy- high-rise, medium- rise and low-rise RC structures. The
sis and to use it to obtain the performance of the structures structures have three bays along X-direction and three bays
under a given lateral loads. To determine the performance along Y-direction moment-resisting frame of reinforced
of the structure against a given earthquake, are different for concrete. The concrete floors are modeled as rigid Fig.1. The
different method, FEMA 356 describing displacement co- details of RC –sections in Fig.2, Fig.3 and Fig.4.The details of
efficient method and FEMA 440 describing improvements study case are given as:Number of stories were taken to be
to both capacity spectrum and displacement coefficient 6 ,9 and 12 .Number of bays along X-direction were taken
methods. In the last years , extensive research studied the to be 3.Number of bays along Y-direction were taken to be
behavior of FRP as strengthening material or as reinforcing 3 Story height was taken to be 4000 mm.Bay width along
for beams (exposed to flexural and shear loads), also a lim- X-direction was taken to be 8000 mm .Bay width along Y-di-
ited research work has been examined the axial behavior rection was taken to be 8000 mm.
of RC columns with FRP, Afifi.M, et al[2]. carried an inves-
tigation on the circular column under monotonic axial load
until failure, the specimens were reinforced with GFRP and
steel bars and stirrups , The model takes into account the
effect of many parameters such as; type of reinforcement,
longitudinal reinforcement ratio; transverse reinforcement
configuration; and the volumetric ratio. The results showed
the compression failure of longitudinal FRP bars was by
buckling or crushing, The amount and distribution of lon-
gitudinal FRP reinforcement significantly affected column
ductility, with a slight strength gain.on the analytical side ,
S. Cimilli Erkmen and Saatcioglu [10] studied the behavior Figure1: 3D models of symmetric-plan 6-story structure
of a 5-storiey - 3-bay plane frame under seismic load and
reinforced by FRP. Column and beams were confined with
FRP Grid to ensure inelastic deformability, From analytical
investigation CFRP reinforced concrete buildings can be
used for seismically active regions.
In Egyptian code ECP208 and ACI-440-1R-06, it
isn’t recommend to use FRP in compression members or
in seismic zones . FRP sections are designed according to
ACI-440, ISIS.No3and CAN/CSA-S806-12. The objective of
this study is to investigate the effect of FRP on the seismic
behaviour of frame structures. Three RC frames with dif-
ferent heights representing low-, medium-, and high-rise
structures, respectively, were designed and investigated
frame. The pushover analysis was conducted based on Seis-
Jacobs Publishers 3

Figure 2: Typical details For Steel-RC sections

Figure 3: Typical details For CFRP-RC sections

Figure 4: Typical details For GFRP-RC sections

Jacobs Publishers 4
The letters S,C and G identify model as being rein- nent load was added (live load, floor cover).
forced with steel ,CFRP or GFRP bars respectively .The let-
ters N ,F refer to number of story and Compressive strength Table 2: FRP Reinforcement Properties
respectively. The FEM considered a range of concrete com-
pressive strength from 30 to 60 MPa with 10 MPa incre- Elastic ten- Ultimate Ten-
ments for each run. Material Tensile strength sile sile
Material modulus
(Mpa) (Gpa) strain (%)
For materials definition, a mean concrete com-
Rebar /
pressive strength of 30 MPa , a steel yield strength and FRP
CFRP[12] 1532 140 1.09
tensile strength in Table.1, Table.2 respectively were con-
Rebar /
sidered, The concrete was modelled using the proposal of
GFRP[13] 1262.8 61.41 2.05
Mander et al. For Reinforcement steel was modelled with
the Menegotto & Pinto, and FRP was modelled and assumed
by SeismoStruct Fig.5[10] . Pf = (X/H) 0.5 [9] (1)
Where Pf: is the factor multiplying to lateral force
Table 1: Steel Reinforcement Properties SeismoStruct
Beam-column elements is then obtained through the inte-
gration of the nonlinear uniaxial stress-strain response of
Ultimate Ten-
Material Yield strength Elastic tensile sile the individual fibres (typically 100-150) in which the sec-
tion has been subdivided Fig.6. FB is used for simulating
m o d u l u s connection between beams and columns, this Element in-
(Mpa) (Gpa) strain (%)
frmFB (the inelastic force-based element type) is the most
accurate among the four inelastic frame element types of
Rebar 400 200 0.06
SeismoStruct, since it is capable of capturing the inelastic
behaviour along the entire length of a structural member.
Loading
To predict the P-delta effects on the structural seismic anal-
Incremental static loads were applied according to
ysis, geometric nonlinear was mode led [11].
ECP 203[6] at different floor levels of frames in a predefined
parabolic pattern according to equation (1). Also, a perma-

Figure 5: Stress-Strain model for the structural materials adopted in SeismoStruct.

Jacobs Publishers 5

Figure 6: Beam-column elements[11]

Results and Discussions

General behavior and modes of failure
It was observed that failure mechanism steel reinforce-
ment control frame, failed in flexure by yielding of the steel
bars. Concrete crushing was the most common failure mode,
occurring in the models of over-reinforced section for car-
bon and glass fiber reinforced models, and then following
by rupture FRP in T-beam section Fig.7 and Fig.8.

Figure 8: Location of damage elements for 6-story and

12-story.
With increasing the height of frame, the perfor-
mance level changes its stage. For Steel-RC frame, based on
target displacement, the worst plastic hinge is located in
immediate occupancy level for 6-story and life safety lev-
el for 9-story and 12-story. Because of no yielding for FRP
bars, the target displacement is taken at intersection with
capacity curve, where the area above and below the curve
Figure 7: Location of plastic hinges for 6-story and 12-sto- is equal Fig .9, the worst virtual plastic hinge is located near
ry. collapse prevention level. Thus, frames under parabolic
lateral load are not safe for re-occupancy and could not be
technically practical to repair.
Jacobs Publishers 6

Figure 9: Capacity Curve and its Idealized force-displace-

ment curve.
4.2 Inter-story drift
The inter-story drift ratio for 6 and 9-story of FRP-RC frame
had reached to the same ratio of Steel-RC frame ,the limit
state criteria at this is immediate occupancy according to
FEMA 356.On other hand , the inter story drift ratios for
12-story of FRP reinforced frames are failure before Steel-
RC frame, so it did not reach to the limit state criteria of
Steel –RC frame which at this level is life safety according to
FEMA 356 ,Fig.10.

Figure 10: Inter-story drift at failure point.

Jacobs Publishers 7
Parametric study In general it was observed that the ductility ratio and over
Effect of reinforcement type: FRP-RC strength decreased with increasing the number of stories
frames started to failure early than Steel-Rc frame. the over strength and ductility ratio as shown in Fig.13.
Thus, in this time, Steel –RC frame still in operational level,
FRP-RC frames started inelastic range Fig.11.

Figure 13: Over strength-ductility relationship.

Effect of concrete strength: It was observed from Fig14.that
Figure 11: capacity curves for Reinforcement type. increasing the concrete compressive strength enhanced the
Where: OP: operational Stage, IO: immediate occupancy lateral load capacity and the corresponding drift level.
Stage, LS: life safety stage and CP: collapse prevention stage. By dictating the target displacement (performance point ),it
Effect of number of story: It was observed there is shift of clearly show ,that behavior of frames enhanced .
performance point towards to collapse prevention level
with increasing the number of stories .Also there is reduc-
tion in base shear capacity of the frames with decrease in
initial stiffness Fig.12.

Figure 14: Capacity curves for various compressive con-

Figure 12: Number of stories corresponding to base shear. crete.
Jacobs Publishers
Conclusion
• Pushover analysis is a good tools to get information
about drifts which are indicators of damage ,but in high- rise
structures becomes little useful, which before formation
plastic hinges on upper stories the plastic hinges in lower
stories turn to life safety and even to collapse prevention.
• Because of the brittle characteristics of FRP re-
inforcement, the sections are designed to be over –re-
inforced with failures initiating through the crushing of
concrete. T-beam sections were designed to be under-re-
inforced because of its large concrete compression zones,
which required very large areas of FRP reinforcement.
• Target displacement is calculated according to
displacement coefficient method. The frames analyzed
to the target displacement limit have shown no failure.
• By increasing number of stories, the
damaged elements is increased, thus the ele-
ments change performance levels to higher stage.
• Increasing of compressive strength of con-
crete has significant effect on the behavior of frames
reinforced by FRP, unlike Steel-RC frames was found
to be a little benefits to structural response of frames.
• SeismoStruct assumed that FRP has no resistance in
compression, thus, the seismic behavior of FRP –RC frames
started to failure early as not usual. Also those frames in-
fluenced with acceptance limit for performance level which
are different than Steel –RC frames.
References
1. ACI440.1R-06,2006,”Guide for the Design and
Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP
Bars”,American Concrete Institute.
8
2. Afifi, M. M. Z. M.,[2013],”Behavior Of Circular Con-
crete Columns Reinforced With FRP Bars And Stirrups”,De-
partment of civil,Sherbrooke,December.
3. ATC-40,1996,”Seismic Evaluation And Retrofit Of
Concrete Buildings.
4. CAN/CSA-S806-12,(2002 and 2012),”Design and
Construction of Building Structures with Fiber-Reinforced
Polymers”.
5. ECP208,2005,”The Use Of Fiber Reinforced Poly-
mer ( FRP) In The Construction Fields”,Egyptian Code Of
Practice.
6. ECP203,2001,”Egyption Code For Design and Con-
structions Concrete Structures “,Egyptian Code Of Practice.
7. FEMA-273,1997,”NEHRP Guidelines For The Seis-
mic Rehabilitation Of Buildings”,AGENCY, F. E. M.,Washing-
ton, D.C.
8. FEMA-356,2000,”Prestandard And Commentary
For The Seismic Rehabilitation Of Buildings”,Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency,Washington, D.C.
9. Khoshnoudian, F., Mestri, S. and Abedinik,
F.,[2011],”Proposal Of Lateral Load Pattern For Pushover
Analysis Of RC Buildings”,Computational Methods in Civil
Engineering,Vol. 2,2,169-183.
10. S. Cimilli Erkmen and Saatcioglu, M.,[2008],”Seismic
Bahviour Of FRP Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings”,The
14thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engineering,Beijing,
China ,October 12-17.
Jacobs Publishers 9
11. Seismostruct,v.7.0.4, “A computer program for stat- bar - Product Data Sheet”,www.vrod.ca.
ic and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures (on-
13. V-ROD,Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Re-
line), available from URL: http://www.seismosoft.com.
bar - Product Data Sheet”,www.vrod.ca.
12. V-ROD,Class Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Re-